"WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING", boomed the press release (their caps). Wow. What could it be? Cold fusion? A cure for AIDS? Life in Uranus? The press conference promised to "unveil a major historic scientific find" that will "address a long-standing scientific puzzle."

Following the Sunday Mail scooping the Darwinius story two weeks ago, this missive was sent out in a sort of stable door/horse scenario. Of course, many writers had already guessed that this breathless annunciation was connected with Darwinius, the gorgeous little German primate fossil. The hype was duly noted.

I briefly met Darwinius (also known as Ida) in late 2008, shown a photo by the television production company who were lucky enough to be filming when the fossil was acquired. It was a special moment. The build-up was shrouded in secrecy. I had signed a legal agreement not to talk to anyone about it. I was taken into a room and the image dramatically revealed. It was like being shown an Area 51 alien. I have never seen such a complete fossil of a primate. If you're a bit of a fossil geek like me, this was a moment for mouth-breathing. Seconds later, I realised I had no idea what I was looking at, but that it was beautiful.

Scientific discovery is a slow burning process, which takes years of toil and grind before publication, maybe years of argument (in palaeontology, sometimes bitter feuds) before acceptance. That makes it not very good fodder for television, which is superficial, ephemeral and immediate. Yet in the case of this primate, the film crew recorded the mysterious process of discovery as it happened. This is potentially a tremendous thing, to reveal to the public how science really works. But also it risks the tail wagging the dog (or 31 caudal vertebrae wagging the primate in this case). The television schedule was set before the paper was written. The press campaign was being set up before the paper was submitted to a journal. The book deal was in the works before the research peer reviewed. This is science as marketing.

Science on television is often subject to reductio ad absurdum, misrepresents how science happens and the true significance of evidence. While I was being teased by the production team one of them informed me that it was a more important find than Lucy, our upright direct ancestor from 3 million years ago. As I recall, my kneejerk reaction to this was a wide eyed and sincere "fuck off". That would really have been A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING. Well, I was right.

In terms of the facts of Darwinius' lineage, we'll find out sooner or later. That's how science works. It is a continuum that relies on consensus by experts. As a media story though, it's all weird. The research paper was held back from journalists scrabbling around to find their story, and hype rose, while the caution of the peer reviewed paper has diminished. I have not seen the programme yet, but television is a medium that demands goggle-eyed excitement, and science is a process that requires diligent caution. That balance is as rare as Darwinius herself.

Interestingly, in the paper itself the authors are admirably restrained and do not assert any claims about the position of Darwinius relative to the evolution of primates that resulted in humans. They, of course, will be scientists tomorrow and next week and next year, and will continue to study their find after the clawing hacks, television shows and hype has blown away.

She is a truly spectacular fossil, an exceptionally well preserved and beautiful primate. It's all made even more charming by the fact that she is less than a year old and still has baby teeth, you can see the outline of her fur, and the contents of her last meal. All of that makes her just fantastic. To record the process of discovery is a terrific piece of serendipity, and the BBC had the foresight to commit to a primetime show on a piece of live science. But please, can we all get some perspective and recognise what Darwinius really is: a magnificent specimen set in stone, but one from which conclusions are most certainly not.